This is doubtless where we are headed, if corporate profits remains the ultimate arbiter of society's allocation of resources. There is no countervailing force to this tendency. What's supposed to stop it? In the above quote, Eisenhower suggested that "only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry" could serve as a countervailing force. As admirably prescient as much of his speech has proved to be, 47 years later we can all see that this potential countervailing force has been neutered, smashed, and removed from the playing field.
Much of the MIC's growth is driven by economic forces that would exist whether the US was "at war" or not. From the late 1940's until 2001, the MIC grew steadily, slurping insatiably from the public trough -- and there were only a few outright wars of significant duration -- Vietnam and Korea. There were numerous smaller or shorter-lived interventions, in addition. But most of the time, it was possible to keep the MIC growing steadily, even without fighting on a scale that objectively warranted MIC expansion. Even when the USSR -- the ostensible "threat" that was supposedly the MIC's raison d'etre -- disintegrated, there was no letup in "defense" spending. Instead, there was panic in Washington to come up with a new "enemy" that could replace the "Communist Menace" as a justification for MIC growth. The primary imperative was MIC growth; finding an "enemy" to justify it was secondary.
MIC expansion was immensely profitable even without occupying countries whose natural resources were great economic prizes. But the fateful US turn towards open military aggression, including the establishment of enduring bases in Iraq, created the conditions for profit-making opportunities which hadn't existed before. It opened up whole new vistas of corporate militarism.
Naomi Klein delineates a group of these in her discussion of "the homeland security bubble" which saw a network of "start-ups" and "incubator" companies sprouting up like wild mushrooms in the suburbs ringing Washington DC, in the wake of 9-11. She writes, "Whereas in the nineties the goal was to develop the killer application, the 'next new new thing,' and sell it to Microsoft or Oracle, now it was to come up with a new 'search and nail' terrorist-catching technology and sell it to the Department of Homeland Security or the Pentagon."{5} Surveillance equipment, biometric ID technology, facial recognition software and the like rapidly became big business, nourished by the US Treasury acting as "venture capitalist."
Other roles in the MIC are played by politically-connected companies like Blackwater and Halliburton. Still another role is played by the oil companies (whose executives met with Cheney 4 months before 9/11 to gaze at maps of Iraqi oil fields together -- without the MSM finding this in any way improper!).
The basic project in Iraq -- projecting military force into an oil-rich country -- flows directly from the logic of capitalism. In terms of causation (as has been articulated for years with great clarity by the WSWS {6}), the project reflects the decline of the US global economic position. The US is attempting to use its military prowess -- its one remaining area of unquestioned superiority -- to compensate for its deteriorating economic dominance.
In terms of forward-looking strategic goals, the project is inspired by the oil and gas; and the leverage it would give the US, to be able to control the energy spigot of its rivals. Under the rules of capitalism, there is simply no way to pass up an "opportunity" like this, any more than any corporate board can ever afford to pass up a chance for a truly lucrative acquistion. Initially, one might hesitate at small impediments like the US Constitution and international law. But such trifles are easily swept aside. The "law" must give way, because the law arises from the foundation of the profit system, not the other way around. (Another affirmation of Marx: the economic system is primary; while concepts of law are subordinate, and are abandoned when they no longer serve the system. Similarly, concepts of politics are subordinate, and are abandoned when no longer useful. This is why the Bill of Rights, Geneva Conventions, habeas corpus, & so on are simply being thrown overboard.)
Stepping back for a moment to assess how all the forces line up, one sees that the imperatives of the economic system "incentivize" war at every level. The only force against the war is the population who's being forced to fight it and pay for it -- but they have no power. By contrast, the oil and oil-service companies, the security companies, weapons makers, helicopter makers, military-base service & construction firms, and so forth, all have a great deal to gain by more war. And they all have plenty of power.
The arena of official politics reflects the decidedly pro-war imperatives of the economic system. There, we currently see the spectacle of the "presidential primaries," where both parties are predictably moving towards nominating pro-war candidates (neatly disenfranchising the 70% of the public that opposes the war). One party is unabashedly pro-war; the other is no less determined to achieve the strategic and economic goals of the occupation, but conceals this by emphasizing language like "getting the troops home as soon as possible." Meanwhile, the media also reflects the same system imperatives, portraying the establishment of permanent military bases in an oil-rich country as "fighting terrorism, to keep Americans safe." No candidates of either party dare contradict this laughably dishonest and self-serving formulation -- to do so would run counter to sacred points of state doctrine.
Capitalism and Financial Collapse. The stock market gyrations of the last few days are anchored in an uncharacteristic (for the stock market) apprehension of reality. The market is right to fear that the global economic outlook, particularly that of the US, is in dire straits.
Even the perennial media and government cheerleaders for the "strength of the US economy" had recently begun to acknowledge that there will be some rough sailing ahead. For years, these voices had blithely ignored the failings illustrated by burgeoning trade and budget deficits, mounting indebtedness, weak job creation, the offshoring of American jobs, the stock market and housing bubbles, and the drop in real living standards for over 80% of the population since 1977.{7}
Though the MSM has predictably sought to conceal it, the trigger for the currently threatened collapse -- the credit crunch brought about by the subprime mortgage fiasco -- is a tremendous crime. It's not (as the MSM narrative would have it) a "natural" economic problem, like the fluctuations of the business cycle. Rather, it stems from a massive Enron-style looting, far more ambitious than anything Ken Lay ever pulled off. Mortgage originators knew perfectly well that they were creating "securities" based on something that was guaranteed to fail: the ability of uncreditworthy homebuyers to buy wildly overpriced houses. They created these securities, got rating firms like Moody's to rate them "AAA," then turned right around and sold sliced-and-repackaged versions of these things to other banks and pension funds around the world. Now much of the financial world is sinking in the resultant toxic sludge.
Nonetheless, the shysters who did this (aided & abetted by financial deregulation, which both parties backed), and some of the banks they sold sludge to, are still very powerful people. They got their friends at the Fed to bail them out. This makes the banks happy, and it makes the stock market happy. But it does nothing to help those who were victimized by predatory loans and will lose their homes to foreclosure; or the many retirees who live on interest income from their savings. It harms the entire domestic population, who will be paying the bill via increased inflation, as the dollar drops and import prices rise. The Fed's action is "of Wall St, by Wall St, and for Wall St." Essentially, it shifts the burden of paying for the theft from the powerful to the powerless. This is only to be expected, in a society that's run almost exclusively to protect the interests of the privileged.
It's very significant that the looters themselves -- the loan originators -- are not only going to get away scot-free with their crime, but are not even going to be conceptually identified. The entire matter is being shoved under the rug, as the MSM builds a divorced-from-reality narrative of the gallant Fed "rescuing the economy," while it's really just trying to bail out the banks, including some that colluded in the original crime, and others who simply made foolish investments (which you're supposed to "own," in capitalist theory). The economic "problem" is being presented to the public as a "credit crunch." Nobody really understands just what that means -- which is all to the good, as far as the criminals and their powerful protectors are concerned -- but the term is useful because a "credit crunch," like a hurricane, has no deliberately scheming villains behind it. The mortgage scam, by contrast, certainly does have scheming villains behind it.
Note that the MSM narrative bears a striking parallel to the official narrative on Iraq, where what is really a world-class crime committed by the most powerful US institutions, driven by the private profit of a small class of people, is portrayed as a "noble undertaking" which supposedly "protects all Americans." In both delusional narratives, the crime in question is asserted to be "good" because it "helps all Americans" -- in the one case by rescuing "their" economy, in the other by protecting their "security." Only in a society where class consciousness has been so systematically erased from the public culture, could a national media hope to get away with conflating the interests of "all Americans" with those of a handful of giant politically-connected corporations.
Even if the mortgage-scam gangsters hadn't brought things to a near-term head, the US economy was still destined for a painful confrontation with reality. While earlier robber barons like Henry Ford understood that it was necessary to pay his workers a wage that would enable them to buy a Model T, today's robber barons lack that insight, and simply aim to plunder everything they can get their hands on. The predictable outcome has been rising wealth inequality, the 2-tier society, and the putrefaction of political institutions and media.
Richard Mynick is a US citizen who, despite the best efforts of the corporate media, noticed something disturbing about how the 2000 election was decided, & felt it augured poorly for democracy.
Very good article. I'm just not sure what to do about it.
The socialist alternatives to capitalism seem to me to be complete pie in the sky.
With the best will in the world I can't see ordinary members of the 'working classes' educating themselves enough to take power and to hold it at the level of the citizen voter. It seems that no sooner is power taken temporarily, then real differences between people in terms of intelligence and ruthlessness and opportunity cause it to be concentrated again.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 3:13:32 AM
(& used to think similarly, myself). But the more you think about the forces guiding the system, the more you come to see that the current system can't "fix" itself. It's a living system, and -- like all living systems -- is driven by its own survival instinct. It evolves with fidelity to its own internal programming. It will sometimes feign interest in "external values" (ie, values that aren't obviously self-serving) like social justice & democracy -- but that's just a tactic to disarm potential opposition.
Left to its own inner logic, this kind of economic & social system will inevitably produce political structures like the Bush administration & all that goes with it. It produces neutered & fake "opposition parties" like the Democrats, & corrupt garbage like the US media. So the outlook is for more Bush administrations, though with new faces. Even if they're Democratic faces, the only permitted change will be more "uplifting" language. Underneath the prettier language, nothing will be permitted to interfere with rule by Wall St & the MIC. Eventually, this must end with melted polar ice caps, or the world running out of oil, constant resource wars, or financial collapse.
When you use the phrase "pie in the sky," I understand this objection perfectly. But the thing is that there's so little choice, when one considers what must happen if there's no fundamental departure from the present course. // What's really "pie in the sky" is the idea that the kind of politics that capitalism imposes would ever permit a government that would NOT exclusively cater to ruling class interests. For instance, the idea that a Kucinich-type figure could EVER be nominated by a capitalist party -- that's really "pie in the sky."
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 11:47:37 AM
Can you envision a post-capitalism world that doesn't become capitalist again and that acknowledges and better accomodates the differences between different human beings?
Can you essentially design a better system for humans to be a part of than capitalism that does not involve wild optimism about human nature?
Even if we had a level playing field where their is equality of opportunity, merit and talent will rise and we won't get equality of outcomes unless we are willing to handicap and restrict the growth and development of the talented and the gifted and the obsessively hard working. People aren't all the same and can't without doing great violence to many of them make them all the same. You get that don't you? I think a lot of socialists don't. And I am not sure you are a socialist. One doesn't have to be a socialist to be critical of capitalism.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 6:34:05 PM
The broad question is like a book with 2 chapters. The first
chapter is "Why Capitalism Will Destroy Us All." The second chapter is "And Here is My Plan for a Better System."
I have read quite a few such writings, & can confidently assure you that the quality of the first chapter is invariably better than the quality of the second. This is because capitalism is an existing & concrete system -- and it's a hell of lot easier to write brilliant critical analyses of an existing thing, than to write precise & compelling blueprints for a social system that has never existed.
You ask if I could design a better system? Yes, I'm sure I could. There are plenty of people who could do a better job than I could, and I've never tried writing "Chapter 2" of that book. (My thinking is more focused on the Chapter 1 level, since that's the more urgent problem.) But I don't think it would be hard to design something better than what we've now got. (In many ways, it would be hard to do worse.)
The whole trick would be trying to design the new form of social organization so that the well-being of the great majority (and of the planet itself) was the primary goal, rather than the well-being of a tiny ruling minority. What we have now is a pyramid structure with far too much wealth and power at the top. All that has to be distributed downwards. That's the main principle. There are all sorts of conceivable ways to do this, emphasizing local control, cooperative effort, & bottom-up structures as much as possible. But the underlying idea is not complicated -- it's doing away with the top-heavy pyramid.
You ask whether I "get" the discussion about different people having different levels of merit & talent, and equalizing outcomes, etc -- Of course I "get" it. I mean, that's the very first discussion you run into, when you start thinking seriously about possible alternative economic systems.
A very interesting book by Bertrand Russell called "Proposed Roads To Freedom" (written in 1919) considers (among other questions) whether or not incentives, in the form of higher pay, might be necessary in a better-designed society. He considers various possibilities -- including the idea that perhaps the best result would be obtained from paying the highest salaries to those whose work was most disagreeable (like sewer cleaners, for example).
The point is that even a very profound thinker like Russell found quite a range of schemes as having some potential merit. One can't be doctrinaire about how every gear and lever might work. So for example I wouldn't categorically exclude the possibility that some kinds of work should be compensated differently than others. I can easily see arguments either way, on questions like that.
When you write, "People aren't all the same and (you) can't without doing great violence to many of them make them all the same," I think you're maybe getting sidetracked into certain unhelpful paths (that however always spring up in these conversations). First of all, I never said people are all the same. I also never said I want to make them all the same, & my whole point is avoiding doing violence to anyone. It's capitalism that's such a tremendous source of violence to people. I am not talking about doing more violence to people -- on the contrary, the whole point is to do less!
My basic interest is in a "tradeoff" in the design of society, in which we get rid of too much power & concentrated wealth at the top, in return for a vastly better deal for everyone else. I believe there are numerous ways to do that, but that's the general goal.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 12:37:52 AM
As usual, most who make the effort to read it already know it... and most who need to know it won't make the effort to read it. The sustainable alternative to "endless profit" has not had room to culturally evolve.
Had "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" been as brutally suppressed/ co-opted (although the effort continues) as Marx' dangerous idea, biotechnology as we know it would not exist today. The virulent anti-"collectivism" meme in the US is an example of Feudalism attempting to preserve itself.
by
waldopaper (11 articles, 3 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 426 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 10:00:36 AM
Wow! That's a wonderful response (and I don't mean the part
where you said "Excellent presentation," either!)
It's fascinating to dwell on just why Marx was so dangerous. It's not at all that he "advocated violence" or dictatorship, or anything of the sort. It's that he told too much truth about rule by the rich. That certainly wasn't an idea they were going to allow to enter into public circulation, unchallenged. To protect themselves, they had no choice but to smear and distort his whole body of work.
And your last sentence there, about feudalism & the anti-collectivism meme -- that's right on the money. // Thanks very much for that comment.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 1:33:09 PM
... who is determined to try to make Capitalism work through a series of reforms. Your opinion is that my quest is an impossible one and I accept your opinion as having good reasoning.
by
Steven Leser (210 articles, 44 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1384 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 12:11:14 PM
The whole historical subject of "reformist" attempts is both
important & illuminating. Capitalism's ability to defang, co-opt & eventually eviscerate reformist attempts is pretty sobering. Parties like Labour in Britain & the SPD in Germany sprang from very radical origins. Now such parties have been reduced to shameless collaboration with US imperialism; and in their own countries, are just as corporatist as our Democrats.
Look what happened to the New Deal, in our country. In the mid 1960's, one would have been justified in assuming that the New Deal had permanently transformed US society. It seemed unthinkable that the gains of that era could ever be lost. Yet since the late '70s, a process of relentlessly overturning many of the New Deal gains has been underway. They deregulated everything, got rid of Glass-Steagall, etc. (This trend, abetted by both parties, led to Enron, WorldCom, etc, & now the subprime scam.)
And of course, they did away with 800-yr old habeas corpus. They did away half of the Bill of Rights. In its own horrible way, it's very impressive.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 2:47:44 PM
This time, they’ve sent us a woman. They’ve sent a black man. They’ve sent an old man. They’ve even sent a Mormon. They’re sent to us dressed in all manner of costume. And blacks shout: “free at last.” And women shout “it’s about time we gave a woman a chance.” Eager to “get out and vote”, the diversity of candidates teaches Americans that America is truly the land of the free where anyone, regardless of race, gender, age or religion, can become the President. Anyone, that is, who can be dangled at the end of the puppeteer’s strings.
Rich’s essay was excellent both in its scope and its disturbing accuracy.
I hope to see some comments that will discuss a. what, if anything, can we do to bring about change and b. whether we precipitate that change or not, what will the future bring?
Rich stated: “A self-reinforcing feedback process grows stronger as time goes on, & can't be stopped without the action of an outside force.”Let’s do a little analysis of what that “outside force” might be.
First, what, if anything, can we do to reclaim our government? One might ask whether there have ever been governments that were not controlled by the wealthiest and most powerful. Is democracy or some form of egalitarianism even possible on a national scale?Perhaps certain Native American tribes or perhaps certain communes have sought to achieve a genuine sense of community where the interests of one were the interests of all.The scale of these examples, however, where everyone had personal interactions with the rest of the community, does not reflect the US of today where our population exceeds 300 billion people spread out over thousands of miles. So, the question remains: is it even possible to build any form of egalitarian society?
Regardless of what system might be devised, is it human nature to be greedy and to seek more wealth and power for itself? If so, is it reasonable to expect any system of governance to eternally restrain the accretion of power to those who are stronger or wiser or smarter or just plain greedier? In short, can we get there from here?
For democracy to exist, it’s clear we need to have an educated, informed electorate. Is this possible? Many Democrats, for example, are keenly aware of the global warming crisis. The problem we face with these “light bulb” liberals, however, is that they are easily sold false remedies. One hot button issue for many Democrats is the threatened drilling in ANWR. Informed, liberal Democrats rightly oppose this affront to nature. They cite the damage such drilling would do to the fragile Alaskan ecosystem. They enthusiastically cheer as one presidential candidate after the next rails against this abuse of the Alaskan wilderness. They will not, however, demand of those very same candidates a plan to radically reduce CO2 emissions. Suppose we banned cars completely. Suppose we mandated a 75% reduction in auto use? Nahhhhh, that’s much too severe. Instead, they accept minor improvements in CAFÉ standards and a paltry mandate to use a little more renewable energy. The Democrats’ energy program will do almost nothing to reduce current levels of CO2 emissions by the year 2020. The crisis threatens all life on the planet and the tokenism offered is enthusiastically endorsed by the “educated” masses. Nice …
So, again I ask, what, if anything, can be done to alter the power structure?The laundry list of society’s inequities pales in comparison to restoring governmental power to its rightful owners. All the great issues of the day, racism, sexism, social safety net, workers’ rights and all the rest of it, is little more than a distraction until human values, however misguided they might be, replace corporate “values” in the halls of the people’s government. Corporations seek profits; that’s it. They do not seek to fight for social justice. They do not seek a better society. They do not seek to enforce the will of the people. They seek profits. Until we can “educate” Americans that their government is not an economic commodity to be purchased by those who can afford it, nothing can possibly change. Today, many Americans, even so called “liberals”, believe that the freedom to spend one’s money on political candidates or to influence policies or laws is a right to be protected. They even extend this “right” to corporations.
It seems to me that trying to build political support to “take down capitalism” is not a wise “first step” political strategy. As abusive as our predatory, inequitable economic system is, it’s been long ingrained in the American psyche. Could that change over time? Absolutely! As a first step to reclaiming power for American citizens, however, anti-capitalism rants seem like a doomed approach.
A better rallying cry, in my opinion, would be to try to build a political movement based on the abuses of “special interests” in our government.For decades now, polls of the American people have shown that a majority of Americans believe corporations wield too much power over national policy.Rather than trying to “take down capitalism” as a first step, perhaps trying to build some momentum against the un-democratic abuses of capitalism would be a better starting point. In thinking of those usually called “the left”, i.e. those who “left” the Democratic Party because they’ve come to see it as an agent of the corporate state, it’s clear that they operate essentially with no meaningful political base. Rather than railing against how stupid liberals are, perhaps the left would be more effective reaching out to Democrats to get on the democracy bandwagon. While the ultimate target might be capitalism itself, an undoubtedly controversial target, highlighting the abuses of “special interests” in Washington would be a much more lucrative short-term objective. The political strategy would be: 1. broaden the base using a broadly held view 2. try to convert this broadened base into greater political power and then 3. eventually dismantle the corporate state.
Is this approach feasible? What say you? The truth is, I have no idea …
And finally, even absent a “revolutionary intervention” from the left, what other “outside forces” might take down the corporate state and what would the new incarnation look like?
Some might see good news in the near-term collapse of the American empire. Some might believe that the ravages of global warming will be so severe that the resultant societal disruptions will have major transformational impact on all our institutions. I think it’s clear to most of us that bad times, very bad times, lie ahead. Unfortunately, even in times of the greatest devastation and social upheaval, the underlying paradigm that the “rich get richer” does not change. Naomi Klein did a remarkable job focusing on this reality in her book “The Shock Doctrine.” The phrase she used, “disaster capitalism”, is exactly what we’re likely to see as the great American empire collapses under its own weight. Bush has already carved out his home in exile in Paraguay. With a few Blackwater militia posted around the perimeter, The Butcher of Crawford will be all set. I know you’ll be glad to hear that.
With the bones of America picked clean, the corporate wave will just move its operations elsewhere. In many cases, it already has. Perhaps, just perhaps, there will be an opportunity to rebuild an egalitarian society from the scraps that remain. Truthfully, in even constant crisis and poverty, the America they leave behind might be a better world for all of us.The expression “live free or die” comes to mind. Or as Bob Dylan wrote: "There must be some way out of here, said the joker to the thief."
Great essay, Rich. Thank you!
by
welshTerrier2 (7 articles, 3 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 105 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 12:41:02 PM
Thanks wT2, -- you've put almost too much here, for me to
respond to. I'm forced to settle for just picking a few fragments, here & there.
You picked up on my “A self-reinforcing feedback process grows stronger as time goes on" idea. - I'm very gratified that a computer-savvy guy like you would be struck by the implications of that! It does seem to me a strong argument, & illustrates how a quasi-mathematical principle can have real meaning for social phenomena.
Is it human nature to be greedy ? - I don't think the "greed is human nature" rationalization for capitalism really works. We all have a range of instincts. Each individual can be ruled by his better self, or give in to being his worst self (or any mix in between). When considering how society should be organized, the aim should be creating a system where people's generally better instincts are encouraged: solidarity, cooperation, sharing, & a rational approach towards consumption. The current system fosters cutthroat competition, alienation, and surrender to materialist consumerism.
It seems to me that trying to build political support to “take down capitalism” is not a wise “first step” political strategy. -Well, there's a sub-group of the Green Party that's more or less explicitly based on this idea. For example, the California Green Party senatorial candidate in 2006 is a socialist, affiliated with the ISO. Many ISO members believe basically what you outlined -- that Americans are just too brainwashed to be open to forthrightly anti-capitalism arguments. They think it's better to more or less keep their critique of capitalism hidden, & to make their case by appealing to concepts like "social justice" and "democracy," which don't raise any red flags (pun intended) in the minds of most Americans.
I don't personally accept this argument, but it would take too long to make the full case for why not. An earlier commenter made reference to "reforming" capitalism. The whole history of attempted reform is a very impressive story of defeat. What I've learned of it convinces me that the minute you hear a proposal for "compromise" in the name of "being practical," it's usually the kiss of death. That's not to say that no compromise is ever justified. But the overall approach has to be primarily grounded in principle. Compromise opens the door to tossing principle out the window, & to oppose capitalism without explicitly saying you oppose it -- that seems like way too much of a compromise. Plus, your own followers won't understand what you're really about. You're sort of stringing them along on false pretenses.
Naomi Klein & "disaster capitalism" - - I'm a big Naomi Klein fan. (I was skeptical about her at first, but she completely won me over.) But anyway, she did the part about how capitalism swoops in to exploit opportunity in the form of disaster. She developed that theme as well as a human being could possibly develop it. // But the flip side of that coin is, what does capitalism do the rest of the time -- in between disasters, so to speak? It either prepares new disasters, or exploits whatever semi-disasters are available at the moment. In other words, its predatory character never sleeps. All capitalism is disaster capitalism. The thing is a mechanism of social control. It was never meant to serve the great majority of the human community, any more than feudalism was.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 5:21:13 PM
Yes, I suppose I can be verbose at times. Sorry about that … I figured a five page essay deserved a somewhat lengthier than normal response. :<)
I wanted to go around one more time on this business of primary versus ultimate political strategies. Specifically, I’m referring to my call to “broaden the base” by championing democracy before calling for socialism. I suppose it’s fairly easy to dismiss this approach as insincere or deceptive or soullessly pragmatic.
I don’t see it that way at all.Perhaps it is possible to teach and write and debate and somehow awaken the masses to the evils of capitalism. How’s that been working out so far? I mean, what political strategy should one endorse that has shown any hope of effecting a change to our economic system? I’m not so skeptical that I think it’s impossible. There have been periods in American history where socialism, or at least unionism, showed signs of life. It’s possible the sparks could be rekindled. As you acknowledged, capitalism is so deeply entrenched in the US that it’s hard to see a near-term path to undermine it.
Relegating the necessary battle against capitalism to a back burner should not be seen as disingenuous or deceptive. Before we can even have a forum to educate the masses about capitalism’s tyranny, it seems to me we need to earn the trust of those we seek to convert by first finding some common ground we’re all willing to fight for. Fighting to give people control over their own government should appeal to Socialists, liberal Democrats and even a few handfuls of conscious Republicans. The battle cry is based on good old American idealism that argues the people should decide the course of their nation. What has been more ingrained in the American psyche than that?
And perhaps, even if any progress towards empowering people and breaking the stranglehold of the corporations can be made, we still might see an eventual fracturing of “the great alliance.” Perhaps those who joined us for one common goal will not share our ultimate vision and the house will again become divided and weakened. I guess the point is, should we only align with those who share our ultimate vision or can we at least make some progress where a broad constituency has similar objectives?
Absent this “pragmatic” approach, if it is indeed pragmatic, what else makes sense? Will standing on the street corner with my “Don’t Capitulate to Corrupted Corporate Capitalism” sign attract new members to my cause? If we don’t broaden our base, I just don’t see how change, at least change we effect, is possible.
The mission statement for this great democracy movement would be something like:“we should eliminate or change any law, policy or institution that allows the wealthy and powerful any more influence over the government than any other citizen.” The idea, as previously stated, is that we cannot allow our democracy to be sold to the highest bidder. Even without confronting capitalism as a corrupt economic system, we must not allow the “free market” to buy and sell political power. The message is “the buck stops here” where “here” means outside the political process. Said differently, we need to distinguish between economic parity (an ultimate goal) and political parity (a near-term goal).
For specifics, we call for an end to private campaign funding. We call for an end to paid lobbyists from for-profit corporations. We call for all candidates on the ballot having access to all televised debates. We call for the decentralizing of all media that provides news and information. We call for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. We call for full disclosure between any elected official and employees of for-profit corporations. We call for an end to “corporate personhood” but we come up with a less stupid name for it. We call for much tighter restrictions on the revolving door between industry and government. We call for an end to equating money with free speech. With these changes in place, we’d be closer to empowering people than we are today. We might also have a better chance in our subsequent fight against the corporate state and against capitalism itself.
Compared to overturning capitalism, I see fighting for democratic reforms as the low hanging fruit. Americans like to believe their country is the seat of democracy but they also understand (in poll after poll) that “special interests” have way too much control over what happens in Washington. If we have any chance of engaging the battle and making any progress at all, and it’s not clear we do, I think the pro-democracy agenda might just be the path to energizing a political base. The people already know the truth about this; the next step is to get them to look beyond their political differences and see this as common ground. If this isn’t the way, exactly what is?
by
welshTerrier2 (7 articles, 3 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 105 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 7:08:32 PM
Well (chuckle!), I don't think I can quite satisfy you on
this point! // BTW, I didn't at all mean you were being "verbose" -- simply that you had raised too many points of substance, so that for me to repond to them all would require writing a very long skinny column here. (When one responds to posts on OEN, the columns get ever skinnier.)
As you say in your 2nd para here, you're mainly trying to elaborate on your idea of "broadening the base" & emphasizing a different rhetorical approach (ie, calling the thing "a democracy movement" rather than an anticapitalist or socialist movement). I think you lay out the case for it very well, & I agree with almost all your specific suggestions, if looked at on a point-by-point basis.
But... what you're talking about is the "united front" concept. It has a long history. I think it can be useful sometimes, but one has to be careful about the circumstances, & about who one enters into a united front with. // In the early 1930's, Trotsky advocated a united front between Communists & Social Democrats in Germany, judging that the danger of fascism was so great, that the potential benefit of the alliance justified taking the risk. In 1936, though, Trotsky opposed the similar "Popular Front" in France, judging that the working class would wind up being betrayed by both the capitalist ("bourgeois") side of the proposed front, & the Stalinist leadership of the big labor parties at the time. Trotsky was probably right both times (though he was in exile by then, had no clout, and wasn't heeded either time -- so whether he was really right is hypothetical. Certainly what did happen, where labor party leadership ignored Trotsky & followed a Stalinist line, led to disaster.).
I only mention that stuff to make the point that it's not the case that united fronts are always good, or always bad. Rather, it depends on the circumstances. And when I read your sentence about "...should appeal to Socialists, liberal Democrats and even a few handfuls of conscious Republicans" it gives me pause. That's all I can really say about it, as an abstract thing.
One other quick point I can't resist responding to -- you used the phrase "How’s that been working out so far?" in your 3rd para, about the failures of directly trying to "awaken the masses to the evils of capitalism." Part of the reason that's always failed is because of brainwashing, of course. But partly it failed after WWII only because the US working class could always be bought off by the incredible postwar prosperity. Soon, though, that prosperity is going to be all gone. Then that 80 or so percent of the population, plus many middle-classers & former middle-classers, may grow more receptive to ideas which directly challenge the system that's so badly betrayed them.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 11:36:04 PM
In the 1900s the true capitalism revolution was mass production.
In the 2000s the new capitalist revolution will be in mass consumption with the emphasis on quality of life and life satisfaction.
We all have homes full of things that for the most part lie idle.
We need to focus on buying services when we need it not things just in case.
The power of the internet means this is feasable.
It is a new paradigm one which could enable sustainable environmental outcomes in the West with greater quality of life at less cost in resources in the South.
As reduced costs (due to consumption efficiencies) will lead to greater capacity to purchase by the third world therefore it should result in minimum disruption to existing vested interests. I.e. its politically doable.
by
kwalsh (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 206 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 3:46:25 PM
and the reemerging Russian expansion. This is why Bu$h & Co. are trying desperately to begin a war there.
Just like Saddam Hussien was selling oil blocks to China, Europe, and Russia's nuclear projects prior to "Desert Storm II", there were plans of a Euro's Exchange program too, leaving the U.S. out of the game.
The Afghan occupation is to control geography of Kazakstani oil by way of pipeline to terminals in the Arabian Sea.
The U.S. is trying to control the Chinese economic expansion "12 Pearls of air bases and navy ports, between the Arabian peninsula and mainland China, by regulating its oil consumption, which is a losing battle.
The "Capitalist" system does not take into consideration of limited resources, degrading environment, or reduced agriculture harvests. Which is the root cause of both environmental destruction,lower grain harvest due to soil depletion and erosion, and ever increased population.
Population is what "Capitalism" thrives upon. But as more money is siphoned off the lower classes by the elite, there becomes less to feed from.
Eventually just like a petri dish of e-coli, the cannibalizing will continue until all perish. If the resources don't run out first, or the environment is to toxic for humanity to thrive.
by
Stanimal (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 484 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 9:36:55 PM
Yes, socialism may be thought a "pie in the sky" idea. But so is democracy, and so is the Judaic-Christian concept of morality, and so is the effort to create a crime-free, poverty-free society. But that should not stop us from trying. Three steps forward. Two and three quarters back. Slow progress! But progress.
Thanks for an outstanding article. The more I read, the more I feel like a character in THE MATRIX.
